I trust the customer

The mean rating was 4.9 and the median 5.0 (n = 799 respondents). Ratings of 3 or below, the distressed range, made up 25.53% of the answers. The rating was associated with all four study measures. Higher ratings came with less cancellation (r = −0.60, 95% CI −0.70 to −0.49, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements), higher customer satisfaction among active engagements (r = 0.74, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.82, p < 0.001, n = 94 engagements), a higher engagement indicator mean (r = 0.77, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.82, p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements) and lower intent to leave (r = −0.78, cluster bootstrap 95% CI −0.82 to −0.74, p < 0.001 with standard errors clustered by engagement, n = 750 respondents). After Holm correction, ratings differed by engagement status and lifecycle stage (Welch F 33.61, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.360) and respondent role (Welch F 12.90, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.018).

Of the 54 written responses, 52 answered C030, on what the respondent loves most about the job, and each of these named the relationship with the financial institution among the three things listed. 51 of the 54 responses were positive. The three negative responses described a relationship that soured or trust that was low. Two of the four written outcome tests reached significance.

Ratings of 3 or below, the distressed range, accounted for 204 of the 799 answers (25.53%). The engagement mean fell in the distressed range in 26 of 150 engagements.

All 54 responses were secondary. Each answered a question outside the indicator's survey section and addressed the indicator in its content. They came from 3 questions. That secondary share ranked 1st from the highest among the 11 Part 4 indicators with 30 or more written responses, tied with seven other indicators, against a median of 100.00%.

Every one of the 52 responses to C030 named the financial institution, the relationship with it or the account among the three things listed, and 16 used the word trust: a relationship built on real trust, trust that was real and not just contractual. The others called the relationship steady, dependable, warm, fair, honest or cooperative under pressure, and most set it beside a manager who backed the team or skills learned on the engagement.

Four responses to C030 described a relationship that held until the engagement ended, soured or nearly collapsed, and two were negative. The single response to C156 said the people on the financial institution's side were fine and placed the difficulty in a governance model written for manual checking. The single response to C210 said trust in the account was low from the respondent's side.

Of the 54 responses, 3 (5.56%, 95% CI 0.00% to 12.96%) were negative and 0 (0.00%) carried the strongest negative score of −10. Positive responses numbered 51 (94.44%), and no response was neutral. The mean written score was 4.5 (95% CI 3.8 to 5.1, n = 54 responses), and the median was 5.0.

Of the 54 responses, 53 came from respondents who also rated the indicator. Among them, the written score rose with the rating (Spearman rho 0.34, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.53, p = 0.014, n = 53 responses). The written responses corroborated the rating. Of the 3 negative responses with a rating, 2 came from respondents whose rating was in the distressed range.

Respondents who wrote about the indicator and gave a rating numbered 53, with a mean rating of 6.3. The 746 respondents who rated the indicator without writing about it had a mean of 4.8. The difference, 1.5 (95% CI 0.9 to 2.1), excluded zero. Ratings in the distressed range made up 5.66% of the ratings from respondents who wrote (3 of 53) and 26.94% of the ratings from respondents who did not (201 of 746).

Every figure in the segment tables is at respondent level. Segments with fewer than 30 respondents carry no interval. Segments with fewer than 10 report counts only.

Segment families recorded at engagement level were tested on engagement means. Respondent role and vendor type were tested on respondents. Where an expected count fell below 5, the test of the distressed share used Fisher's exact test for a two-by-two table, marked exact, or a Monte Carlo test, marked simulated. After Holm correction, ratings differed by engagement status and lifecycle stage (Welch F 33.61, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.360). Active engagements in Production rated highest (mean 6.1, n = 99 respondents) and canceled engagements lowest (mean 3.5, n = 296 respondents). Ratings also differed by respondent role (Welch F 12.90, Holm p < 0.001, omega squared 0.018). Portfolio directors rated highest (mean 6.4, n = 28 respondents) and individual contributors lowest (mean 4.8, n = 620 respondents). Outsourcing model, institution type, process family, class of work and vendor type showed no difference.

Written sentiment differed by engagement status and lifecycle stage across the 37 engagements with a written response (Kruskal-Wallis H 8.28, df 3, p = 0.041). Of the groups with 10 or more responses, responses from active engagements in Transition/Cut-Over were the most negative (mean 4.4, 18 responses) and responses from active engagements in Production the least negative (mean 5.3, 15 responses). Responses from canceled engagements (5) are reported as counts only.

No test across respondent roles was run, because fewer than two roles had 30 or more written responses. Individual contributors wrote 35, engagement managers wrote 15 and portfolio directors wrote 4 responses.

Cancellation rate is the share of engagements canceled by the study date, measured at engagement level (150 engagements, 56 canceled). Canceled engagements were rated after cancellation. The association is therefore a descriptive contrast and not a forecast of cancellation.

Across the study set, higher ratings came with less cancellation (r = −0.60, 95% CI −0.70 to −0.49, Holm p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in thirteen of the 20 segment levels tested.

Customer satisfaction is the percentage recorded against each engagement. The primary estimate uses the 94 active engagements. A descriptive contrast uses all 150 engagements.

Across the active engagements, higher ratings came with higher customer satisfaction (r = 0.74, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.82, Holm p < 0.001, n = 94 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in fifteen of the 16 segment levels tested.

The engagement indicator mean is the mean of an engagement's ratings across the rated indicators, measured at engagement level (150 engagements). The indicator does not enter the mean.

Higher ratings came with a higher engagement indicator mean (r = 0.77, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.82, Holm p < 0.001, n = 150 engagements). The association held after Holm correction in twenty-three of the 24 segment levels tested.

Intent to leave is the answer to C019, “How likely are you to leave your current job in the next 12 months?”, rated 1 to 10. It is measured at respondent level on up to 798 respondents, with the engagement-level form reported alongside.

Respondents who gave higher ratings reported lower intent to leave (r = −0.78, 95% CI −0.81 to −0.75, Holm p < 0.001, n = 750 respondents). The association held after Holm correction in thirty-seven of the 37 segment levels tested.

Two comparisons set the engagements with at least one negative response against all other engagements. Of the 147 other engagements, 113 had no written response addressing the indicator. These two comparisons therefore do not isolate written sentiment. Of the 3 engagements with a negative response, 2 were canceled, against 54 of the 147 other engagements (36.73%). The difference did not reach significance (Fisher exact p = 0.556). The comparison of customer satisfaction was not computed, because one of the two groups held too few active engagements.

Two correlations test written sentiment directly. Across the 37 engagements with a written response, a more negative engagement mean written score came with cancellation (point-biserial r −0.46, p = 0.004). Across 51 respondents, a more negative respondent mean written score came with higher intent to leave (Spearman rho −0.41, p = 0.003). Of the three comparisons, two reached significance at 0.05.

The four associations were compared in pairs on their engagement-level forms, each oriented so that a higher value is the better outcome, across the 150 engagements with all four measures. After Holm correction, five of the six pairs differed. The association with intent to leave was the strongest and the association with cancellation the weakest. The associations with customer satisfaction and the engagement indicator mean did not differ (Holm p = 0.364).

Answers clustered within engagements (ICC 0.65). Clustering reduced the 799 respondent answers to the equivalent of about 211 independent answers. Respondent-level intervals therefore used the cluster bootstrap. Respondent-level tests of intent to leave used standard errors that allow for clustering by engagement.

No association was equivalent to zero. Each of the four differed from zero. The detection floor shown is the study floor at 150 engagements. Intent to leave was tested on its effective sample size.

Each change was computed before rounding and may differ by 0.01 from the difference between the two printed values.

All 22 checks held. A check holds when its test falls on the same side of 0.05 as the primary test. Where the primary test falls below 0.05, the check must also keep the sign of the primary correlation. The thin-base check removes the engagements in any level of outsourcing model or process family with fewer than 30 engagements. Institution type is not used for that check, because every one of its levels has fewer than 30 engagements.

Each of the four measures was computed from data the indicator does not contain. Each result is therefore a finding and not an arithmetic consequence.

Each deviation was computed before rounding and may differ by 0.01 from the difference between the two printed values.

The comparison covered 150 engagements. The indicator departed from the study's typical pattern on the engagement indicator mean and intent to leave. Its association was stronger than the norm on intent to leave. Its association was weaker than the norm on the engagement indicator mean.

Among the 11 Part 4 indicators with 30 or more written responses, the indicator's share of negative responses, 5.56%, ranked 10th from the highest, against a median of 33.33%. Its mean written score, 4.5, ranked 10th from the most negative, against a median of 0.8.

The indicator most often present in the same responses was C080, “My manager is effective.”, in 13 of the 54 responses (24.07%). C084, “My manager cares about the larger team.” (10 responses), C018, “How happy are you with your current job?” (5 responses), C014, “Rate your overall agentic AI expertise.” (3 responses) and C020, “How happy is your extended team with the current engagement?” (2 responses) followed.

The most frequent theme was “Skills learned”, in 28 responses (51.85%). The second was “Team or colleagues”, in 17 responses.

About a quarter of all ratings of trust in the financial institution fell in the distressed range (204 of 799 answers, 25.53%). The rating was associated with all four study measures, and every association held under each of the 22 robustness checks. Canceled engagements rated well below the three active stages (mean 3.5, n = 296 respondents).

The written evidence comes almost entirely from respondents who valued the relationship and named it among what they liked about the job. A more negative engagement mean written score came with cancellation, and respondents whose written responses were more negative reported higher intent to leave. With three engagements holding a negative response, the cancellation contrast did not reach significance.

The evidence is the reported experience of the vendor's delivery teams, collected in a single cross-section. The associations reported here are not causal.

Tests by respondent role and by vendor type treated respondents as independent. The section on clustering reports how far clustering within engagements reduced the information in respondent-level figures.

Customer management executives gave 1 answers, a base of anecdote strength.

Shares of written sentiment are shares of responses and not of the study set of respondents. The written score takes five fixed values, so its mean and median are coarse. Responses clustered within engagements (54 responses on 37 engagements). Intervals for written sentiment therefore used a bootstrap by engagement.